Kerala High Court
Ajith Kumar K.G vs Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative ... on 22 December, 2015
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 11478 of 2016 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. AJITH KUMAR K.G.,
BRANCH MANAGER/SUPERINTENDENT,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. SREEDEVI T.N.,
BRANCH MANAGER, THIRUVALLA BRANCH,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. PUSHPAKUMARI D.,
BRANCH MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA MAIN
BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
SRI.C.P.SABARI
SRI.H.MAHADEVAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
PIN - 689 645.
2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689 645.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX, SC
R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 11478 of 2016 (H)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ORDER DATED 25.9.2013
OF THE REGISTRAR ALONG WITH POSTS SANCTION
P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2016 OF THE REGISTRAR
SANCTIONING BRANCH AT THENGAMAM
P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 22.1.2016 ALONG WITH
ADDITIONAL POSTS SANCTION WITH TRANSLATION
P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT REPORTED IN 2000 (3) KLT 389.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------
EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE FOR APPOINTMENT BEARING
NO.PTA VI(1) 931/10 DTD.21.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE PSC TO
THIS RESPONDENT.
EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NON-AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE BEARING
NO.PTA IV(1) 931/10 DRD.25.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE PSC TO
THIS RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.11478 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are Branch Managers of the 1st respondent bank, evident from Ext.P1. As per Ext.P2, bank is working in class III category. First and second respondents requested the Registrar to classify the bank in class II category with additional posts. Now PSC advised 9 candidates to the post of Branch Managers to be filled from open market and from employees quota. Presently there are 5 vacant posts of Branch Managers. According to the petitioners, the Managing Committee is taking steps to revert the petitioners to accommodate PSC hands in the light of Ext.P2 reclassification. However, bank has submitted Ext.P4 resolution seeking additional posts by making suitable amendments to Appendix III, which is pending consideration. According to the petitioners, four 'C' grade branches will be changed to 'A' grade branches category and therefore, there will be four additional posts. That apart it is contended that, for making appointments in the above posts, there is no need for sanction of posts as it W.P.(C). No.11478 of 2016 2 is sanctioned in Appendix III. In terms of Ext.P8 judgment of this court, there is no need or permission of the department for sanction of the posts, is the contention. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.
2. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands made by the petitioners and also contending that at present the bank is classified as category III. Even though Ext.P4 resolution is placed before the Registrar, no orders are passed on the same. Therefore, unless and until Ext.P4 is approved by the Registrar, petitioners are not entitled to make any claim contending that petitioners are entitled to be appointed in view of additional posts.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent bank and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. On a perusal of documents, it is categoric and clear that, the categorization of bank to category II is not so far approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, even though Ext.P4 resolution is W.P.(C). No.11478 of 2016 3 forwarded by the bank and pending consideration before the Registrar.
5. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that, a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 resolution forwarded by the 1st respondent bank and take a decision on the same in accordance with law. The contention raised by the petitioners that they are occupying posts of Branch Managers is not disputed by the counsel for the 1st respondent bank. Therefore, since Ext.P4 is pending, I think it is only appropriate that till such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 petitioners are not reverted from the post of Branch Managers. In that view of the matter and reckoning the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 06.08.2016